Meeting Details

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Deacon and Gooch and Councillors Gandy and Byatt attended as their substitutes respectively.  An apology for absence was also received from Councillor Leach.

In Councillor Deacon's absence, Councillor Clery, Vice-Chair, chaired the meeting.

The Committee received report ES/2464 of the Cabinet Member for Housing.

Councillor Bennett arrived at 6.37pm.

The Head of Housing reported that a review of homeless and rough sleepers was required every five years and a strategy was then produced using the data.  She explained that there were normally multi-reasons leading to someone becoming homeless so the Council worked with partners to address them. Several key organisations had been consulted when drafting the strategy and Members were asked for their comments with a view to any final amendments being made before it was taken to Cabinet and Full Council in September.  The Temporary Accommodation Strategy sat alongside the Housing Strategy and the report explained the different types of accommodation used and the demand, which had increased dramatically since Covid and nationally was at an all time high.  In East Suffolk there were a lot more children (184) now living in temporary accommodation. The Head of Housing explained that, although prevention was at the heart of what they did, there were still times that people ended up in temporary accommodation so a strategy was needed to decide what the Council's temporary accommodation would look like in terms of size and location.  She acknowledged that it was challenging if someone became homeless and the Council did not have accommodation in their area as they had to move away.  She concluded that, it was hoped that the Temporary Accommodation Strategy would come forward next year.

The Chair invited Committee Members’ questions and the following responses were received:

• Ex military personnel had additional priority on the Register to try to facilitate a swifter move, however, there were often multiple people from the forces competing for housing at the same time. Bereaved spouses were also supported and their circumstances were taken into account.  It was found that a lot of homeless people came from the forces so the Council worked closely with SAAFA to try to help them.
• The Council was doing a significant amount of work on Domestic Abuse with the County Council; Anglia Care Trust provided accommodation across the district; there was a refuge in Lowestoft; and Orwell Housing delivered housing and support for victims. The number of refuge units in Lowestoft had recently increased from 6 to 13 within a new location in Lowestoft.  In addition, the arrangement with Orwell Housing offering specialist accommodation for Domestic Abuse victims was still ongoing.  These units were allocated through the Gateway to Home Choice Register and had security as well as minor specialist security measures to protect them.  The Council received £35,344 this year to support Domestic Abuse victims to remain in their own homes if they wanted to eg by providing security measures, and an in-house Domestic Abuse Officer supported many victims.  The Council was currently drafting its first Domestic Abuse policy which would be considered by Cabinet in September.
• The current strategy had been produced in 2019 but a lot of the legislation had changed due to Covid, including new guidance on keeping homeless and rough sleepers off the streets.  There had also been a massive influx of single homeless people as they could not sofa surf during Covid.
• Other changes between the old and new strategy were that certain organisations now had a Duty to Refer to the Council so action could be taken earlier; family interventions were delivered; there was a dedicated Domestic Abuse Officer; tenancy support was available for those that struggled to maintain tenancies; there was an increase in accommodation through East Suffolk Lettings; and the East Suffolk Housing Pathway that was approved last September was a supported housing scheme providing 139 beds, including dedicated provision for 18-25 year olds.  The Council was also a Corporate Parent with the County Council in relation to children in care and leaving care because they often suffered trauma which led to homelessness.  The Housing First model for care leavers was a dedicated flat with intensive support and was an exemplar model not replicated across the country.  In addition, navigators had been employed to engage with rough sleepers and develop a personalised plan with each of them.
•  Funding for schemes was a huge issue as there tended to be a piecemeal approach from Government and announcements were made at the very last minute.  All the schemes were currently funded by Rough Sleeping money or the Homelessness Prevention Grant but it was not yet known how much funding would be received for either.  Some statutory services were built into the General Fund but there was a risk for those services that were funded externally if it was not received.
•  The cost for temporary accommodation had increased significantly so the next step was to create a Temporary Accommodation Strategy taking into account the budget and increase in demand.  The Council was negotiating on 14 units in the south of the district and also in the north as there was a lot of demand there.  Planning Permission had been granted for a scheme for 15 self-contained units which should be ready next year.  Covid and the Cost of Living Crisis had had a huge impact because a lot of people who could afford their private rent or had mortgages could no longer do so.  The Local Housing Allowance (LHA) was far below rent levels across the district with very few rents matching the LHA rate.  More landlords, especially accidental landlords who inherited properties for example, were now exiting the sector due to legislation changes.
•  A project officer had been employed for all Sizewell C housing related matters and the Council was working with the CAB to deal with issues.  Dedicated funding was also available to regularise Sizewell C workers' accommodation, so the Council was advertising to employ an inspector to ensure the accommodation was to a good standard.
• The Council had carried out a Housing Needs Survey and a Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) was about to be conducted which was a high level review of housing needs across the whole of Suffolk.
• There were currently a lot of meetings happening in relation to Sizewell C accommodation to make sure whatever was developed was to a good standard and its legacy was the provision of good quality housing for families or tourism use.
•  The Council was looking at different options to provide the necessary temporary accommodation including modular builds, open market purchase.  It was hoped that the draft Strategy would be available for Members to consider in the new financial year.
•  Rough sleepers were hard to engage with and tended to be transient but the Council could offer them help to reconnect to their old area if they wanted to return.  An Outreach Team also provided specialised tenancy support to entrenched rough sleepers to try to support them into sustaining their tenancies.
• Homeless people were approached as individuals with the aim of building relationships with them and to gain their trust so if a commitment was given to go back and see them then Officers would ensure they did.  Mobile phones could be provided and they had access to day centres so they could wash and have hot meals.
• The Housing Team would work closely with the Communities Team on MAHMET which would be launched in November, not only on homelessness but also health and housing. 
• Whilst East Suffolk did have some vehicle dwellers, it was not a major issue and they were treated the same way as a rough sleeper.
• There were currently 10-12 rough sleepers across the district but the numbers fluctuated.  A snapshot was taken every November with regular reports to Government on how many were being supported.  Social Media was used to promote how to report rough sleepers and using "What 3 Words" helped locate them quickly.
• A Care Leavers Protocol was being developed following workshops with the Districts, the County Council and MHCLG so they did not become homeless when they left the care system at 18.  Support included the County's Staying Close accommodation and help with furnished accommodation.  Discussions were also held with County about those in care who might not be able to sustain a tenancy.
•  Councils had been working together for many years to provide short term transit provision for Travellers as most did not tend to want to be settled in one location.
• Selective Licensing was part of the Private Sector Team's work rather than homeless.  Data obtained in the Housing survey was being used and shocking conditions were being found so it was positive this service was being continued as Government funding for it had been lost.  The Council wanted to do more preventative and enforcement work.
• Following a previous Scrutiny Committee recommendation, a dedicated Empty Homes Officer had been employed to focus on those properties that had been empty the longest, although some were easier to bring back into use than others as it could be difficult to track ownership.  Between the Planning and Housing Teams, action could be taken if a property had fallen into disrepair, however, some properties had then gone to auction but had not sold.  Councillors could contact the Head of Housing if they identified empty properties.
• The Renters Rights Act would deal with Section 21 Evictions as landlords would not be able to relet properties for a period of time to stop them evicting existing tenants and raising the rent for new ones.
• There had not been an increase in the elderly presenting as homeless if their relationship broke down as they tended to have affordability and were entitled to full benefits if they were of pensionable age eg not subject to the “bedroom tax”.
• Refugees were not legally allowed to work so it was not possible for East Suffolk to have a pilot scheme similar to that for international students which enabled them to work and move out of asylum hotels.
• Although shared ownership properties were still being built, there were issues with builders providing enough affordable housing so the Council was addressing those issues partly by building its own as it would pay itself back over 40 years.  There were six shared ownership properties on Deben Fields and others were coming forward.  Government guidance changed about 19 months ago to lower the amount and it was now a minimum of 10% with the option to "staircase up" as time went on.  The Council was also working with developers to understand their barriers to providing affordable housing such as the increased building/fire regulations etc.
•  The County Council was responsible for care leavers as the main corporate parent and their responsibility lasted longer if the young person continued their education on to Uni.

At the Chair's invitation to sum up, the Cabinet Member referred Members to the proposed recommendations in the report. 

The Chair then invited Members to debate and make any recommendations.  

Councillor Jepson thanked the Cabinet Member and Officers and commented that they were clearly incredibly ambitious and were leading from the front. He added that there was a need to make sure the Council was not funding what others should be doing and that none of the services finished if external funding was lost.  Councillor Gandy agreed and queried if it would be helpful if the funding needed to cover the services could be ringfenced.  The Head of Housing clarified that the only funding which had not yet been confirmed was the Rough Sleeping grant which was usually nearly £90K per annum and was used for various projects such as move on beds, dedicated rough sleep work, mental health support etc. The Cabinet Member confirmed that it would be helpful if the Committee recommended that the funding was underwritten for at least the following year to ensure everything continued and temporary staff remained in post.

In response to Councillor Byatt's query, the Strategic Director explained that the new Regional Mayor would have a much broader remit than the previous Local Enterprise Partnership and would have the impetus to support health and wellbeing but homelessness was within the remit of the unitary councils.  She pointed out that it was important the Council continued its work and support for partners so they felt equipped through the Local Government Reorganisation changes.  Councillor Byatt queried if the Committee should, therefore, urge Cabinet to continue to fund these services for the remainder of this Council's life if the external funding was lost.

Councillor Ninnmey referred to the report which stated that temporary accommodation costs had risen by 100% in two years and commented that the Council should support the purchase of S106 and other suitable accommodation because the impact of people who became homeless having to move out of the area was huge as it impacted on communities, especially on those near Sizewell C.

Councillor Bennett queried whether any work should be done in relation to vehicle dwellers and the Cabinet Member pointed out that it was difficult to do a survey if their whereabouts were unknown but he urged Councillors to let Officers know if they were aware of any.  The Head of Housing stated that they were doing some promotion in relation to mechanisms for making referrals about homeless people and it could be made clear that this also covered vehicle dwellers.  Councillors Gandy and Cawley suggested that it would be useful for Communities Officers, charities and the Police etc to have this information.

In response to Councillor Lynch, it was agreed that a Councillor Briefing could be arranged on homelessness etc.

Councillor Ninnmey suggested the Cabinet Member look at ways to fund more S106 and Affordable Housing and he responded that these came under the HRA and approval of any schemes would go through the normal process.

The Chair queried if Members would like to review the Temporary Accommodation Strategy next year once it was available.

On the proposition of Councillor Jepson, seconded by Councillor Ninnmey, it was 

RESOLVED

1. That Cabinet be recommended to approve the Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Strategy 2025-2030 and the recommendations 2-4 below in relation to the action required to implement the Strategy within legislative timescales be endorsed:

2. That authority be delegated to the Head of Housing, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Housing to make any presentational or clarificatory improvements or minor non-material amendments as necessary prior to its submission to Cabinet and Full Council, including updating any data where this becomes available in the intervening period.

3. Conduct an annual review of progress against the strategy and action plan, which should be reported to Cabinet and ensure the quarterly key performance indicators are reported as part of ESC’s Corporate Performance Framework.

4. The work identified through the Strategic Review of Temporary Accommodation, be supported to reduce the dependency on expensive nightly let accommodation and ensure better access to good quality Temporary Accommodation (TA) within the East Suffolk Council area through the Development of a new Temporary Accommodation Strategy.

5. That Cabinet be urged to consider underwriting the current homeless and rough sleepers' services for at least a further year should the external funding cease.

6. That the draft Temporary Accommodation Strategy be reviewed by this Committee once available.

7. That a Councillor Briefing on Homelessness and Rough Sleeping be arranged.

The Committee adjourned for a comfort break at 8.20pm and reconvened at 8.30pm.

The Chair invited Councillor Beavan, Cabinet Member for Housing to introduce his report in response to the pre-set Cabinet Member Scrutiny Session questions as set out in the agenda.

Councillor Beavan stated that he was supported by a brilliant Housing Team who probably had one of the most important jobs at the Council as they made a real difference to people's lives.  He added that he was excited about their work and was working them hard!  He hoped they could be innovative in their approach but the big challenge was that there were not enough social homes and developers were not building houses  that people could afford to live in or were sustainable eg the Council and other Registered Providers would not buy any S106 properties that had to be retrofitted straight away.  He added that he did not mind if social housing was provided by the Council or other Registered Providers but if it was the Council then he would make sure any borrowing could be paid back.  He explained that, previously, East Suffolk had lent more to other Councils than it had borrowed, however, now was the time to start investing in East Suffolk and build homes that people could afford to live in. He concluded that his job was to look at priorities and the Officers' job was to look at the legalities and practicalities.

The Chair invited Committee Members' questions and the following matters were discussed:

• The cost of the different levels of support provided in the East Suffolk Pathway, which were based on age groups and individual requirements.
• The different organisations the Council worked in partnership with such as Housing Associations and the voluntary and private sector.
• The ringfencing of East Suffolk's portion of the double Council Tax levy placed on 2nd home owners to provide support to particularly affected areas.
• The possibility of introducing an additional charge on AirBnBs for every rental they had, to help fund the provision of housing.
• Whether there was a need to increase staff resources to cover all the work required.
• The works being carried out internally to facilitate the demolition of St Peter’s Court, Lowestoft.
• The possible cost and timescale for the Council to provide further housing using a mixture of Section 106 Affordable Housing and building Council properties, although this was proving difficult eg the Kirkley Waterfront development had issues.
• The desire to provide sustainable housing where possible such as the pilot of four properties using embodied carbon and providing roof insulation etc for the Council's housing stock.
• The need for the Council to remain involved in developing Council owned land to ensure the end product was really good.
• The need for a strategic plan to achieve the Council's housing ambitions using different methods such as through the provision of affordable housing and borrowing to buy Section 106 properties or private houses. 
• The possibility of licensing landlords to drive up standards.
• The potential impact of the Renters Reform Bill and the abolition of S21 Notices.
• The introduction of a National Landlord Gateway where landlords would have to be listed on a database which could help identify rogue landlords.
• The Government crack down on those landlords who had "sinking funds" as part of new legislation re managing leasehold service charges. 
• The Stepping Home Beds pilot in Lowestoft to reduce bed blocking at the James Paget Hospital which provided adaptations, key safe schemes, decluttering etc.
• The Council's aspirations for engaging tenants including the creation of a communication group, possibly a joint tenant/Councillor Scrutiny Session and the formation of a Tenant Engagement Board.
• The inadequacy of commuted sums and the need to find a mechanism to connect developers with Registered Providers so that S106 properties were built to their specifications thereby encouraging them to buy the houses.
• Over 100% of the Disability Living Grant was now spent each year as people were moved from hospital to temporary supported accommodation, which included a virtual warden to monitor them, whilst the adaptations were made to their homes.

Councillor Beavan stated that, as it was clear there was a lot of interest in housing, he was open to having a standing meeting to discuss the Council's housing strategy if the Committee wanted.

Councillor Molyneux reiterated an earlier point that a strategic approach was needed and referred to a meeting he had just had with a temporary housing specialist working with Bristol City Council who provided a turn key solution that might work for East Suffolk.  The Cabinet Member stated that money might not necessarily be an issue if a case could be made for borrowing, and requested Councillor Molyneux email him the details.  The Strategic Director stated that she was already in contact with Bristol City Council regarding how they delivered housing.

The Chair thanked Councillor Beavan and the Officers for their attendance.

The Committee was reminded that this timetable of formal meetings had been drawn up following the recent Review Topic Selection Workshop.  The Chair reiterated the Committee's thanks to everyone involved, particularly the Youth Councillors, Cabinet Members and Officers who had suggested topics.  He explained that, in addition to the formal meeting timetable, the Committee would also meet informally throughout the year to receive an interim update on the budget and also the Council’s performance.

There being no questions or comments in relation to the Work Programme, it was proposed by Councillor Jepson, seconded by Councillor Green that it be

RESOLVED

That the Committee's Work Programme for 2025/26 Municipal Year be approved.